[Public]
Much appreciated, Ville and Jani!
To tackle this MST message ack event now, probably I could just pull out the
drm_dp_mst_kick_tx() out of drm_dp_mst_hpd_irq() and make it the second
step function to handle mst hpd irq? Would like to know your thoughts : )
Again, thanks for your time!
Regards,
Wayne Lin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 10:01 PM
> To: Lin, Wayne <Wayne.Lin@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lyude@xxxxxxxxxx; imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx; jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx; Wentland,
> Harry <Harry.Wentland@xxxxxxx>; Zuo, Jerry <Jerry.Zuo@xxxxxxx>;
> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Clear MSG_RDY flag before sending new
> message
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 02:09:05PM +0800, Wayne Lin wrote:
> > [Why & How]
> > The sequence for collecting down_reply/up_request from source
> > perspective should be:
> >
> > Request_n->repeat (get partial reply of Request_n->clear message ready
> > flag to ack DPRX that the message is received) till all partial
> > replies for Request_n are received->new Request_n+1.
> >
> > While assembling partial reply packets, reading out DPCD DOWN_REP
> > Sideband MSG buffer + clearing DOWN_REP_MSG_RDY flag should be
> wrapped
> > up as a complete operation for reading out a reply packet.
> > Kicking off a new request before clearing DOWN_REP_MSG_RDY flag might
> > be risky. e.g. If the reply of the new request has overwritten the
> > DPRX DOWN_REP Sideband MSG buffer before source writing ack to clear
> > DOWN_REP_MSG_RDY flag, source then unintentionally flushes the reply
> > for the new request. Should handle the up request in the same way.
> >
> > In drm_dp_mst_hpd_irq(), we don't clear MSG_RDY flag before caliing
> > drm_dp_mst_kick_tx(). Fix that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > .../gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c | 2 ++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 22
> +++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 3 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/disp.c | 2 ++
> > 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
> > index 77277d90b6e2..5313a5656598 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c
> > @@ -3166,6 +3166,8 @@ static void dm_handle_mst_sideband_msg(struct
> amdgpu_dm_connector *aconnector)
> > for (retry = 0; retry < 3; retry++) {
> > uint8_t wret;
> >
> > + /* MSG_RDY ack is done in drm*/
> > + esi[1] &= ~(DP_DOWN_REP_MSG_RDY |
> DP_UP_REQ_MSG_RDY);
> > wret = drm_dp_dpcd_write(
> > &aconnector->dm_dp_aux.aux,
> > dpcd_addr + 1,
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > index 51a46689cda7..02aad713c67c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > @@ -4054,6 +4054,9 @@ int drm_dp_mst_hpd_irq(struct
> > drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, u8 *esi, bool *handl {
> > int ret = 0;
> > int sc;
> > + const int tosend = 1;
> > + int retries = 0;
> > + u8 buf = 0;
> > *handled = false;
> > sc = DP_GET_SINK_COUNT(esi[0]);
> >
> > @@ -4072,6 +4075,25 @@ int drm_dp_mst_hpd_irq(struct
> drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, u8 *esi, bool *handl
> > *handled = true;
> > }
> >
> > + if (*handled) {
> > + buf = esi[1] & (DP_DOWN_REP_MSG_RDY |
> DP_UP_REQ_MSG_RDY);
> > + do {
> > + ret = drm_dp_dpcd_write(mgr->aux,
> > +
> DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR_ESI0,
> > + &buf,
> > + tosend);
> > +
> > + if (ret == tosend)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + retries++;
> > + } while (retries < 5);
>
> What's with this magic retry loop?
>
> Not sure I like the whole thing though. Splitting the irq ack semi-randomly
> between driver vs. multiple helpers doesn't feel great to me.
>
> As a whole the HPD_IRQ handling is a total mess atm. At some point I was
> trying to sketch something a bit better for it. The approach I was thinking was
> something along the lines of:
>
> u8 vector[...];
> drm_dp_read_irq_vector(vector);
> ... handle all irqs/etc., calling suitable helpers as needed
> drm_dp_clear_irq_vector(vector);
>
> And I was also thinking that this drm_dp_*_irq_vector() stuff would always
> use the ESI layout, converting as needed from/to the old layout for pre-1.2
> (or whatever the cutoff was) devices.
> That way drivers would just need the one codepath.
>
> > +
> > + if (ret != tosend)
> > + drm_dbg_kms(mgr->dev, "failed to write dpcd
> 0x%x\n",
> > + DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR_ESI0);
> > + }
> > +
> > drm_dp_mst_kick_tx(mgr);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > index bf80f296a8fd..abec3de38b66 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -3939,6 +3939,9 @@ intel_dp_check_mst_status(struct intel_dp
> *intel_dp)
> > if (!memchr_inv(ack, 0, sizeof(ack)))
> > break;
> >
> > + /* MSG_RDY ack is done in drm*/
> > + ack[1] &= ~(DP_DOWN_REP_MSG_RDY |
> DP_UP_REQ_MSG_RDY);
> > +
> > if (!intel_dp_ack_sink_irq_esi(intel_dp, ack))
> > drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, "Failed to ack ESI\n");
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/disp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/disp.c
> > index edcb2529b402..e905987104ed 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/disp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/disp.c
> > @@ -1336,6 +1336,8 @@ nv50_mstm_service(struct nouveau_drm *drm,
> > if (!handled)
> > break;
> >
> > + /* MSG_RDY ack is done in drm*/
> > + esi[1] &= ~(DP_DOWN_REP_MSG_RDY |
> DP_UP_REQ_MSG_RDY);
> > rc = drm_dp_dpcd_write(aux, DP_SINK_COUNT_ESI + 1,
> &esi[1],
> > 3);
> > if (rc != 3) {
> > --
> > 2.37.3
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
